from the fantastic-ruling dept

We already covered the basics of the Australian court ruling in favor of iiNet yesterday, but if you read the full ruling you begin to realize what a well reasoned argument the judge made, and hopefully it can become the basis of future rulings on this particular topic. The judge clearly took the time to understand the actual issues, and understand how BitTorrent works, how the internet functions, and making sure that he didn't cut corners and assume that things in the digital world were exactly analogous to the physical world. It's one of the more clueful rulings you'll read. Michael Geist has highlighted a few sections that do such a great job of explaining why ISPs should never be copyright cops. It's an argument that we've tried to make in the past, but which the judge does quite eloquently. Basically, he notes that determining whether or not something is infringing is not easy, and requires a sophisticated court, not the random claims of a right holder or the suspicions of some third party:

Regardless of the actual quality of the evidence gathering of DtecNet, copyright infringement is not a straight 'yes' or 'no' question. The Court has had to examine a very significant quantity of technical and legal detail over dozens of pages in this judgment in order to determine whether iiNet users, and how often iiNet users, infringe copyright by use of the BitTorrent system. The respondent had no such guidance before these proceedings came to be heard. The respondent apparently did not properly understand how the evidence of infringements underlying the AFACT Notices was gathered. The respondent was understandably reluctant to allege copyright infringement and terminate based on that allegation. However, the reasonableness of terminating subscribers on the basis of non-payment of fees does not dictate that warning and termination on the basis of AFACT Notices was equally reasonable. Unlike an allegation of copyright infringement, the respondent did not need a third party to provide evidence that its subscribers had not paid their fees before taking action to terminate an account for such reason.

Furthermore, the court found that it's troubling to have ISPs cutting off users based on accusations, without a court weighing in on the actual details:

One need only consider the lengthy, complex and necessary deliberations of the Court upon the question of primary infringement to appreciate that the nature of copyright infringements within the BitTorrent system, and the concept of 'repeat infringer', are not self-evident. It is highly problematic to conclude that such issues ought to be decided by a party, such as the respondent, rather than a court. Copyright infringement is not a simple issue. Such problems as identified are not insurmountable, but they do weigh against a finding that the respondent could conclusively decide that infringement had occurred and that it had the relevant power to prevent by warning, suspension or termination of subscriber accounts, even if it had the technical capability to do so.

These arguments are important, though often brushed aside as meaningless by supporters of turning ISPs into copyright cops or expanding the concept of contributory or secondary liability for copyright. They claim "but of course people know what's infringing," when the truth is it's not that easy. A third party has little way of knowing whether or not content was released on purpose, or if it's use is fair use. Those sorts of things require a sophisticated legal analysis, done in a court -- not by the copyright holder with a demand that the ISP take action. It's great that this court recognized this issue clearly, and hopefully others will start to follow suit.

"No matter the amount of furious bootstrapping that you do (linking to a story on your own site which points to an opinion piece you wrote for a newspaper), there is no proof for or against this sort of action. If anything, the short term shift in the Swedish market suggests that changes in public perception does in fact lead to more sales, but that is something you don't seem to want to look more closely at.

So in the end, we are back to pile of opinion on opinion on opinion pieces with little real science or real numbers to back it up. Congrats!"

Re: Re:

It's the "real numbers to back it up" part that gets me. I showed TAM where the numbers came from but it doesn't matter because what TAM thinks and says is more important than some pesky facts "made-up" by some maker of opinion!

Re: Re: Re:

interesting.
yet another slathering of hypocrisy from you.
you make a base assumption on a commenter stating the comments they make have nothing to do with the article and because of that you have no comment on said article.

your dislike of the comment also has nothing to do with the article, as a general rule you take things way out of context in order to make your point seem more logical and you are the last person that should be defining "troll".

i have noticed when there really is no assailable content in the article, you resort to this type of tactic. cant attack the story? attack something else i guess huh?

Hobson's choice

Sometimes courts are saddled with a Hobson's choice at best, especially in cases like this, unprecedented in new technology. And so they often have to go with the lesser of two evils. On the face of it, this is a good decision.

But since it's rational to expect industry to press on to create some path to guaranteed payment linked to products taken and enjoyed, and it's probably reasonable to anticipate government backing them for the justice involved and the tax revenue gone missing, then couldn't this decision also be seen as another step in the bad march towards an inevitable internet "tax" for all digital industry?

It seems to me the ISP's were the last realistic hope of continuing the historic coupling of price and product, no?

Expressed another way, isn't it just possible that in a few year's when faced with "pay whether you want to pay or not" we'll all yearn for the better old days of "freedom to take and pay, or freedom to leave and not pay"?

For myself, I'd rather pay for the products I take as before to avoid being forced into paying for products I never wanted.

Re: Hobson's choice

It seems to me the ISP's were the last realistic hope of continuing the historic coupling of price and product, no?

They were the last bastion of hope for people who don't realise the difference between valuing access to content and the content itself.

Price is still coupled with product, it's just in a way that you seem intent on not understanding. When ability to access a work is practically infinity, the amount people are willing to pay to access it will be 0 due the obvious ubiquitous nature of it. This can only come about thanks to technology making it so easy and cheap to duplicate, which in turn leaves less money in distribution.

However, this allows people who couldn't distribute previously due to higher barriers like cost to use this to their advantage, making more money than they could previously through attention gained that drives audiences to live shows and to purchase merchandise.

For myself, I'd rather be realistic and pay based on what actually has real value, not what others want to force me to value.

Its a very good judgement ....

Re: Its a very good judgement ....

Oops ...

This is a very good judgement. One that it will take 5 years of legal wrangling to get in the US after ACTA is implemented. But it will happen here in the US also. That is one good thing about the US legal system, slowly but surely constitutionality and reason do prevail.

Re: Re: Its a very good judgement ....

to Modplan

"When ability to access a work is practically infinity, the amount people are willing to pay to access it will be 0 due the obvious ubiquitous nature of it."

True, that's simple economics, if access were the only thing to consider.
So it IS rather convenient you've managed to ignore entirely the pre, shoot and post-production costs of the making and marketing of a professional motion picture. That cost gets recouped and then a profit must be returned on investment or the next flick doesn't get made, right?

Isn't that a fundament of business? There has to be a margin that at least meets or exceeds the compounded interest the principle would have earned over the time spent in production, or the business closes down, right? And it has to be commensurate to risk as well. Where is your acknowledgment of these factors? How does paying zero to access the work recoup these costs plus a reasonable profit?

Re: to Modplan

If you are trying to peddle a product that no one wants to pay for, you are not allowed to go running to the government asking for legal handouts.

IF AND ONLY IF the industry reaches a point where it is impossible to make a profit, then it will cease being a for-profit industry. That's all there is to it. People will be sad, become misty-eyed and nostalgic, and move on.

Re: to Modplan

So it IS rather convenient you've managed to ignore entirely the pre, shoot and post-production costs of the making and marketing of a professional motion picture. That cost gets recouped and then a profit must be returned on investment or the next flick doesn't get made, right?

It's not convenient, just obvious, so I left it out.

But let's ignore that technological advances have made it cheaper than ever before to create any piece of work, and focus on the minority of films that are made for millions of dollars due to overly high fees for individuals like actors and directors, an inane focus on slow and expensive advances in CGI for petty one upping of that other overly expensive action film even if it does little to genuinely improve the film, of which are still successful thanks to other factors that do have real value like the cinema experience that can't be easily replicated.

Where is your acknowledgment of these factors? How does paying zero to access the work recoup these costs plus a reasonable profit?

And let's ignore the second part of my post:

"However, this allows people who couldn't distribute previously due to higher barriers like cost to use this to their advantage, making more money than they could previously through attention gained that drives audiences to live shows and to purchase merchandise."

Re: to Modplan

So it IS rather convenient you've managed to ignore entirely the pre, shoot and post-production costs of the making and marketing of a professional motion picture. That cost gets recouped and then a profit must be returned on investment or the next flick doesn't get made, right?

in the past, overcharging for distribution and promotion in order to offset the costs of production was a good way to go. that was the past. this is the present.

promotion and distribution are now/can be essentially free, so you need to find a new source of subsidy or, more importantly, reduce your production costs so they no longer require subsidy.

remember, computers and the internet have brought us a lot more than the ability to get free shit. why not start using them to reduce costs?

the product on sale now, be it movies, music, television, or whatever, is not optimized for digital distribution. it costs too much to make and it doesn't lend itself to the things that people want to pay for. this mass appeal to mass market approach leads to mass downloading.

the distribution and promotion problems have been fixed, and now it's time to focus on fixing the product problem.

Re: Re: to Modplan

"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years, the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary to public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute or common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back." - Life-Line, Robert A. Heinlein

No, its not

"I didn't attack anyone, I am just pointing out that someone is trying to troll. Okay?"

No, its not okay, not after the garbage you have pulled. You dont get to go "well, in THIS thread its not a big deal because I didnt yadda yadda" as if you dont do or havent done that in MANY other threads. You dont get to play Mr "Everyone is picking on me" now after crying wolf a hundred times before. You dont get the benefit of the doubt any longer. You will be taken to task for any comment you make that is specious crap, especially when you REFUSE to answer for any of your comments or any questions directed to you. I am STILL waiting for replies to questions I posted TWO DAYS AGO, which you ignore, yet you continue to troll and bait in other topics.

NO it is not okay.

NO you dont get the benefit of the doubt any more.

NO we wont listen or care unless you raise a REALLY good point, or finally man-up, step up to the plate, and ANSWER FOR YOURSELF instead of hiding, lying, shilling and otherwise ducking EVERY issue put before you.

Re: Re: Re: No, its not

You ask a couple of the hardest questions.

First off, if you want to make anything for yourself and for your own use, I doubt anyone will come after you for it. After all, you have made it entirely from your own materials. No matter how good of a craftsman you are, it is unlikely that you would make a perfect copy.

Second, the "giving the copy" question would depend in part on the chair you copied. Is it a unique design, perhaps ever patent or something along those lines? Are you representing your copy as an original? Did you replicate things like logos, names, or other markings that would suggest that this is something it is not?

I don't think scale is an issue. You could make a million for a million friends, provided you aren't infringing on anyone's patent design or trademarks.

Again, I am not a laywer (and I don't play one on TV), but these seem to be the answers I have seen from others at other times.

Re: Infringing Or Not?

The Anti-Mike wrote:

No matter how good of a craftsman you are, it is unlikely that you would make a perfect copy.

Whether the copy is “perfect” is irrelevant. The question is whether the copy is infringing. If copies had to be perfect to be infringing, then a) there could never have been copyright infringement in the analog days, and b) even with digital copies, trivially changing one bit of the copy would mean it was no longer “perfect”.

Re: Re: Infringing Or Not?

My point is only that when you are dealing with wood, and constructing something by hand and crafting it, you are not getting perfect copies. When you copy a DVD, you get a perfect digital copy. Even the best woodworkers in the world cannot product absolutely perfect replicas by hand (they use templates, computerized routers, and other tools to try to replicate as close as possible, but still there are small variations on every piece).

No, you would not need a "perfect" copy to infringe on a copyright, that wasn't the point, only that in dealing with REAL crafting of a copy, you are very unlikely to make a perfect copy to start with.

Perfection has nothing to do with copyright, not was I trying to imply that it would, only pointing out that he wouldn't be able to make an exact copy without the original tooling.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Infringing Or Not?

Steven, it is pretty much morally wrong to steal. However, our society (western in general) has ended up with a system that is "shades of moral wrong", done I think to appease those who would steal a little, but not a lot. Call it the "little white lie" of thievery.

Once you get into copyright (as you can see on this site) plenty of people have moral standards that are different. You get plenty of people thinking that fair use should be expanded to cover everything including torrents (a sort of backup or try before you buy system!).

If you are copying the chairs for your own use, made from your own hands and your own materials (aka, you suffered material costs and effort to make the copies), I don't think anyone is going to come get you. In purely technical terms you may be violating copyright, but it isn't like anyone knows (or cares). I would think of this as fair use for your own talents.

However, once you start giving them away to friends, you cross a line. For my mind, you cross a line to where you are no longer satisfying you own needs, but now actually competing against the original chair company. If your friends were going to buy 4 kitchen chairs of a copyrighted design, but instead you reproduce 4 chairs for them at a signficantly lower price, you have entered a space where your replication is causing harm (real or potential).

As always, note I am not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV. Your example is complex (and would drive lawyers nutty) because there are a number of complex issues at work, such as the materials you used, actual effort expended, intent, if you were actually successful in duplicating the product, etc. It's why digital music and video are much easier cases, because there is no questions about the amount of effort to make the copies (little) or the lack of accuracy in the duplication (digital copies are perfect), nor is there any issue about the speed that those copies can be made (tons per day).

It isn't entirely simple, and your example would likely make for an interesting court case.

This is great

The whole ruling is quite a read. This blog ( http://robertcorr.com/2010/02/afact-v-iinet/ ) has a few tasty excerpts of the judge completely slamming AFACT council behaviour and assertions in court. This is my favourite bit:

As an aside, the Court notes that AFACT, the organisation which the applicants use to aid in enforcement of their copyright, itself blurs the distinction between tortuous copyright infringement and criminal acts involving copyright, as seen in its name: Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft.

It's really good to see a judge that doesn't take entertainment lobby bullshit at its face value.

Bull, more garbage from TAM

"I didn't see your questions. Sorry. Would you care to point them out? I don't scan every thread like crazy looking for your comments (even though I do love your unmedicated rantings).

So please, if you want an answer, point out the questions. There have been 30+ threads here this week, I can't be scanning all of them just to satisfy you."

Bullshit. Lying Fuck.

They are in threads YOU posted in, that you obviously felt NEEDED your input. You dont get to play the "I havent gone there" card now. So, if I point them out HERE (like I have ALREADY done in the OTHER posts), you will go "I didnt see them THERE, you'll have to put them where I am" bullshit.

You TROLL these posts. You know damn well where they are. Your own profile shows how many posts you have and in how many articles.

Re: Bull, more garbage from TAM

RD, first, can you please learn how to use the "reply to this comment" button so we can follow what the heck you are on about?

Now, as for your question in the other thread, it has already been asked an answered elsewhere (in a thread you posted in as well).

The Canadian numbers vary greatly. One survey has them at about 20%, because the question was phrased one way (asking who had downloaded something in the last 30 days). Another study (from the ISPs, I think it was) showed 40% or so. Both of those studies are available via various techdirt posts, and I suspect you would find them and many more on Mr Geist's site as well.

The real issue that you (and your anonymous friend) missed is that I am not refering to GOVERNMENT numbers, just surveys that are out there. One UK survey had file infringing at 10%, which even Mike admits is probably way low. It all depends on the question asked, and the group surveyed.

Now, as for your cursing and name calling, can you please keep that for your momma? I don't need it. Calling me a lazy fuck and then being too much of a lazy fuck yourself to click the "reply to this comment" button is just classic.

Copyright question

"I have a question for you (asked before and not answered). If I go and buy a nice wooden chair, take it home, and build myself an exact copy (with my own wood and tools), is that morally wrong?

How about if I give that copy to my friend?

What if I make ten chairs and give them to ten different friends?

Then am I a bad person?"

Did you get permission from the creator of that chair, and pay to make a copy based on the design of it? No? Then according to the Big Media mode of thinking (and people like TAM) copyright maximalists, yes, you are a thief and deserve to be punished, have your life destroyed, have everything you own taken away AND be in indentured servitude for the remainder of your life to pay for it. You are to made an example of, and punished well beyond the scope of the "crime." This is what they (and people like TAM) believe.

For the record

I don't believe in the indentured servitude part. I think punishment can lead to rehabilitation and anyone tried and found guilty should have the same right to clear their record and get on with their lives, non-infringing of course, as anyone else.

Also for the record

And you don't have to be a "copyright maximalist", either, to see value in the basic concept and to lobby your legislators, as I do frankly, for legislative support.

"Justice Ginsburg, joined by six other members of the Supreme Court, said in footnote 18 of Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003) about this very subject:
Justice Stevens’ characterization of reward to the author as “a secondary consideration” of copyright law, post, at 6, n. 4 (internal quotation marks omitted), understates the relationship between such rewards and the “Progress of Science.” As we have explained, “[t]he economic philosophy behind the [Copyright] [C]lause … is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors.” Mazer v. Stein, 347 U.S. 201, 219 (1954). Accordingly, “copyright law celebrates the profit motive, recognizing that the incentive to profit from the exploitation of copyrights will redound to the public benefit by resulting in the proliferation of knowledge…. The profit motive is the engine that ensures the progress of science.” American Geophysical Union v. Texaco Inc., 802 F. Supp. 1, 27 (SDNY 1992), aff’d, 60 F.3d 913 (CA2 1994). Rewarding authors for their creative labor and “promot[ing] … Progress” are thus complementary; as James Madison observed, in copyright “[t]he public good fully coincides … with the claims of individuals.” The Federalist No. 43, p. 272 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). Justice Breyer’s assertion that “copyright statutes must serve public, not private, ends” post, at 6, similarly misses the mark. The two ends are not mutually exclusive; copyright law serves public ends by providing individuals with an incentive to pursue private ones."

Rebuttal

"First off, if you want to make anything for yourself and for your own use, I doubt anyone will come after you for it. After all, you have made it entirely from your own materials. No matter how good of a craftsman you are, it is unlikely that you would make a perfect copy."

Videos are taken down all the time of people playing cover songs, remixing songs, and even a baby dancing to 30 seconds of a Prince song. This is the definition of "infringement." Root word: fringe, as in, a part of, on the edges of, skirting the line. Also used in the sense to infringe on someone's personal space, to encroach in an unwelcome manner.

"Second, the "giving the copy" question would depend in part on the chair you copied. Is it a unique design, perhaps ever patent or something along those lines? Are you representing your copy as an original? Did you replicate things like logos, names, or other markings that would suggest that this is something it is not?"

Patents and trademarks are not copyright. This has been pointed out to you REPEATEDLY. Representing as the original is counterfeit. Logos, names and markings are trademark. None has to do with copyright, copying a work, or giving a copy away.

"I don't think scale is an issue. You could make a million for a million friends, provided you aren't infringing on anyone's patent design or trademarks."

!!!!!! Are you KIDDING?? This is the CORNERSTONE of your masters' cases! Its the MASSIVE COPYING that is the big scary monster in the room, according to them. The entire POINT of all these lawsuits is the damage the SCALE of file sharing causes! When have they EVER sued someone for making a copy and giving it to ONE person? Or 10? The ENTIRE ARGUMENT from YOUR industry buddies is that people are sharing TO MILLIONS of people! YOU YOURSELF MAKE THIS ARGUMENT ALL THE TIME!

Now you have the GALL to come in here and take the OPPOSITE side, so you can CONTINUE to argue baseless and specious points? WTF is wrong with you? Are you just pathological? You HAVE to argue the opposite, no matter what the merits? You are unbelievable. Your credibility is DONE.

Re: Rebuttal

because you are unable to find the "reply to this comment" button, it is very unlikely anyone in the discussion above will answer you. So rather than calling us all lazy fucks, can you learn how to do that?

You need to use some more capital letters too. That really adds to your ranting.

Re: Re: Rebuttal

"because you are unable to find the "reply to this comment" button, it is very unlikely anyone in the discussion above will answer you. So rather than calling us all lazy fucks, can you learn how to do that?

You need to use some more capital letters too. That really adds to your ranting."

OK SURE IS THIS BETTER? BECAUSE IF NOT I'M SURE I CAN DO BETTER AND FIND THE "RAM IT UP YOUR ASS" BUTTON!

People reply to my comments all the time. As useful as the "reply to comment" button is, most people arent so incompetent that they cant follow a conversation with a few replies without having their hand held like a baby.

Re: Re: Re: Rebuttal

I am sorry if you aren't very good at deal with the social norms of the board. If you want to be part of a discussion, using those norms helps keep your comments in line with other similar comments, and makes it easier for people to have a full discussion.

What you are doing is the equivalent of mumbling to yourself in the corner, rather than joining a group of people having a discussion. Someone might walk by you and make a comment, but by choosing not to follow a simple process (reply to this comment) your interesting thoughts and ideas end up in the digital version of the corner of the room.

I suspect if you learned that simple skill, you would have to be less shrill in your comments and you would more likely get answered. Then instead of four letter words and nasty attacks, you could actually have a discussion.

Rebuttal x2

Ah I get it now...you are kidding. You are trying to bait everyone by COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY reversing yourself from EVERY post you ever made on the topic of copyright enforcement. Good one, I didnt catch it in time.

Ha! That was good. Got me good there.

"I dont think scale is an issue" HAHAHAHAHA! Man, havent laughed that good in a long time.

Re: Re: Rebuttal x2

TAM, you did an excellent job of once again not replying.
With regards to the reply to comment, you should show your buddy Sam I Am how to use it since he fails.
And oddly enough, it was very easy to follow RDs talks with you in this case. Actually much easier than Sam's usual comments since Sam will get 5 replies and then just start a new thread often without specifying who the reply is to. He at least gave a name farther up today.

But again I want to point out that failed to answer at least half of RDs points, instead just saying "zomg no reply to button, this is my whole comment"

Re: Re: Re: Rebuttal x2

Tofu, I can't answer much of RD's comments because they are rants, not questions. He is unable to accept simple facts, let alone complex ones, so attempting to answer him is more or less like putting a stick in a bee hive and spinning it around. You only make things worse.

Example: "This is the CORNERSTONE of your masters' cases"

Since I have no masters (no slaves either), he is starting from a falsehood. How can I answer something when it starts out as a lie? What is there to answer? If he wants to know what "the industry" thinks, he should ask someone from "the industry". I am not that person.

Another example: "Now you have the GALL to come in here and take the OPPOSITE side, so you can CONTINUE to argue baseless and specious points? WTF is wrong with you? Are you just pathological? You HAVE to argue the opposite, no matter what the merits? You are unbelievable. Your credibility is DONE."

How do I answer this? I have no gall. My points are neither baseless or specious, just points that RD doesn't agree with. There is nothing wrong with me. I am not pathological. I don't have to argue the opposite, although it will always appear that way to RD. My credibility does not start and stop with RD's opinion.

I could tell RD the sky is blue, and he would call me a liar, and that the color of the sky is being dictate to me by my overlord masters of the f'kn **aa's, and so on. If he asks a reasonable question, he would get a reasonable answer. I learned long ago not to deal with people who are ranting, as they more they rant, the less likely they are listening and the more likely they are to cause you physical harm.

RD is too far away to cause physical harm, but I can see little use in giving in to his temper tantrums. When he learned to behave like a reasonable manner, and follow at least some of the social norms of this site, I will gladly answer his questions. When someone spends half of their posts putting up lies about me, calling me names, and insulting me outright, there it little left to discuss. I don't accept that from a 3 year old child, why should I accept it from an (apparently) grown man?

Erm...wrong

"What you are doing is the equivalent of mumbling to yourself in the corner, rather than joining a group of people having a discussion. Someone might walk by you and make a comment, but by choosing not to follow a simple process (reply to this comment) your interesting thoughts and ideas end up in the digital version of the corner of the room."

Um, no they dont. You see, these boards are designed to show each comment in succession, from oldest to newest. They are even numbered sequentially! Your little "gotcha!" rant above is so far off the mark its not even funny. It's a stupid waste of time to even argue it. ANYONE can read ANY of the comments IN CONTEXT just by scrolling down the page. The idea that you MUST use 'reply' or comments are somehow sequestered and skipped/ignored is ridiculous and misleading. Which isnt a surprise, coming from you: trying to hijack yet another thread with lies and deceit to puff your pathetic ego up with delusional self-importance.

Re: Erm...right

Again, I will answer you here.

At the top of each comment section, there is this thing marked "threaded". It allows the discussion to flow naturally, with replies showing up in order, such that it is easier to have a discussion inside the discussion.

If you are viewing the comments as flat, it is exceedingly difficult to know which comment replies to which comment, making it hard to follow. For someone viewing the comments threaded, your comments end up at the bottom of the page and not in the middle of the discussion.

So even if you are personally viewing the board flat, clicking on "reply to this comment" rather than just adding to the end of the page assures that people using the threaded method get your comments in the right place, and can understand what you are talking about.

Otherwise you are effectively mumbling in the corner by yourself, because they aren't going to scroll all the way down the page to see if you happened to add a comment, and try to divine where it was in the overall discussion.

You can either make yourself easier to understand and easier to engage in discussion, or you can mumble to yourself and hope people listen. That is entirely up to you. Just don't get your panties in a knot because people aren't answering you, because they likely aren't reading your stuff either.